]]>By: David Watthttps://climateaudit.org/2010/06/02/epa-and-the-national-contingency-plan/#comment-232075
Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:49:52 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=11077#comment-232075Does anyone have any idea what Admiral James Watson is up to?. Is his 48 hour ultimatum a belated attempt by his bosses in the EPA to assert that after all they are somehow in control? What happened to the “unified command” which I thought till now was calling the shots.

Why did the USGS move the error band on its flow estimates and why was this used so widely to suggest that flow estimates have doubled?

Half the flow is of gas(which it appears doesn’t count) rather than oil, but lots more of the oil which is now being captured is highly volatile and would have evaporated within a very short time if left in the sea. Why is this counted if its environmental effect in reality is no different from that of gas?

Clearly anything that is highly volatile will not figure in any estimates based on the size and thickness of the slick. Is this perhaps the reason why since siphoning started everyone’s estimates of the quantities has gone up?

How does the Clean Water Act apply? Some of the press appear to be suggesting that based on this Act that BP could be charged $4,300 per barrel spilled. But this clause in the Act was I thought was specifically intended to prevent shipowners from emptying their bilges at sea. How can it apply here?.

If there is the slightest risk it could be applied or in any event why hasn’t BP declared Force Majeure?. A mining company would have done this months ago.

So many questions. This thread appears to be stuffed full of knowledgeable people. Is there anyone knows the answers to any of them?

]]>By: SJ Res 16 attempts to rein in the out-of-control EPA and its power grab « Nancy J. Thornerhttps://climateaudit.org/2010/06/02/epa-and-the-national-contingency-plan/#comment-231687
Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:21:56 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=11077#comment-231687[…] The “National Contingency Plan” as described in the EPA manual: “WHEN A MAJOR oil spill occurs in the United States, coordinated teams of local, state, and national personnel are called upon to help contain the spill, clean it up, and ensure that damage to human health and the environment is minimized. Without careful planning and clear organization, efforts to deal with large oil spills could be slow, ineffective and potentially harmful to response personnel and the environment . In the United States, the system for organizing responses to major oil spills is called the National Response System.” https://climateaudit.org/2010/06/02/epa-and-the-national-contingency-plan/ […]
]]>By: Don’t Send a Lawyer to do an Engineer’s Job | RedStatehttps://climateaudit.org/2010/06/02/epa-and-the-national-contingency-plan/#comment-231621
Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:59:33 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=11077#comment-231621[…] efforts while avoiding blame for lack of progress in plugging the leak over 40 days. In fact the EPA is responsible for oil spill response efforts, and the Coast Guard is given responsibility for leading Federal offshore response to such […]
]]>By: Clearing The Air: Obama's Response To The Spreading Oil Is The Issue, Not His Failure To 'Plug The Hole' - Politics and Other Controversies -Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, Prehttps://climateaudit.org/2010/06/02/epa-and-the-national-contingency-plan/#comment-231614
Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:21:55 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=11077#comment-231614[…] […]
]]>By: Fortune 500 Globalhttps://climateaudit.org/2010/06/02/epa-and-the-national-contingency-plan/#comment-231612
Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:56:56 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=11077#comment-231612ISS astronauts return to Earth…

I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…

]]>By: Capt Ghttps://climateaudit.org/2010/06/02/epa-and-the-national-contingency-plan/#comment-231567
Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:03:40 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=11077#comment-231567They are not mandated to possess or operate clean-up gear or even containment gear. What you’ve got now is a bunch of coordinators. Yeah, all chiefs and no indians.
]]>By: Robert Watershttps://climateaudit.org/2010/06/02/epa-and-the-national-contingency-plan/#comment-231564
Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:53:22 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=11077#comment-231564Ixtoc I in 1979 was in shallow water and didn’t have the seafloor mounted BOPs and riser, and the blowout was triggered by incompetent people making a very bad decision. The deep water greatly increases the difficulty in performing any kind of mitigation effort, but it also brings on so much cost that safety regulations are usually strictly observed. Blowouts are almost always caused by at least two mistakes. BP made several, the last one or two uncorrectable. One similarity between this and Ixtoc was the attempt to use a containment device (called the “Sombrero in Ixtoc). The Sombrero was ‘way undersized and was overwhelmed by the oil and gas flow. Red Adair could not do anything effective because the surface riser was damaged. Ixtoc was eventually controlled by one of two relief wells. Much of the oil and tar made it the few hundred miles to Texas beaches.
]]>By: jghttps://climateaudit.org/2010/06/02/epa-and-the-national-contingency-plan/#comment-231331
Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:48:50 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=11077#comment-231331This administration is approaching spill containment just like they are approaching the need for creating new jobs; they are expending massive amounts of valuable resources in way that will not accomplish the goal in any significant way.

Oil containment is a very primitive process. It relies upon the simple principal that oil floats. However, this is only effective for surface spills, as explained below, which is not the case here.

In quiet conditions, oil spilled onto water will remain in a layer on the surface. The primary tool, the “boom”, is just a vertical surface to block the movement of the oil. It is weighted on bottom so it extends below the surface for a distance greater than the depth of the oil layer and sufficiently buoyant on top so that it floats higher than the surface so the oil will not escape over the top.
If the boom can be placed around the leaking source or downstream, the oil can be surrounded by the boom and then skimmed off the top of the water inside the boom.

Now consider our case where the oil is introduced into the water as a high velocity stream 5000 feet below the surface. The oil must rise to the surface before it can be contained. But the velocity of its rise is proportional to the square of diameter of the oil globule (lets ignore the temperature, specific gravity, etc for now). Big globules rise fast, but if the globules are very small enough they will rise very slowly.

It’s possible that introducing the oil at high pressure into the water mixes the oil with the water into an persistent emulsion which may also have such a small buoyancy that it will not reach the surface for a very long time. By then it has traveled a great distance on the currents.

So where do you put the booms? Where will the oil be when it finally reaches the surface? The oil must rise 5000 feet. Until then the booms are ineffective.

If booms are used to keep oil OUT, it will take a lot of boom. I think the Governor of LA has asked for 1000 miles (5 million feet). But booms are not effective very in open water due to the sea conditions (currents, winds, anchorage issues, etc) so oil at the surface can get past and oil that is not very buoyant can go under.

So the benefit of this enormous containment effort is very small (except to the politician who apparently must be seen to be doing something regardless of the expense).